>     Dan,
>
>     I am not against a scoring system per se (not sure how viable in
>     practice), but against it being based on a number of deaths.
>
>     Let's say hypothetically that such a sytem did exist, it would have
>     little meaning without knowing what the denominator is i.e. number of
>     fatalities divided by the total number of *active* technical divers.
>
>     The way to avoid bad instructors is to do a little research before
>     selecting a course:  Ask around who people think is a good instructor,
>     what level is the instructor himself?, Is he/she still at the cutting
>     edge in terms of techniques and equipment? What are his/her previous
>     trainees up to?  Does he/she just stick to the basic course material
>     or do they "go the extra mile" to ensure that their students are a cut
>     above the rest. Answers to these sort of questions (from a wide,
>     *objective* sample of people) will ensure that you are not lumbered
>     with a poor/dangerous instructor.
>
>     What are your opinions on this?
>
>     Paul Larrett
>


Paul,
Your list of questions and research a new diver must use in selecting an
instructor is on target as to preventing "death by a McKnulty", but it fails
in one major area----not all divers aspiring to become tech trained, will
know to ask these questions.
"We" Know, since we have been tech diving for many, many years.  But newer
divers will not know how to screen their potential instructors, and will not
be able to see through a good bullshitter much of the time----and I'm sure
you've at least seen a good share of major bullshitters----like the  HFS who
would march around the boat, barking orders, and telling everyone he was a
SEAL.
Many are very good at "talking the Talk".  Even though McNulty was close to
a "90 day wonder" , as a tech instructor/trainer, he was "thought" by his
students, including Jane Orenstein, to be among the best of the best.  He
had the persona, the talk, and he knew the big names to drop, and had
several  "deep" dives to brag about.

Yes, volume of students trained must be figured in with the number of
deaths, for the death rate to be most  meaningful,  I do not argue this---
but we can also assume that larger volume will allow more deaths to occur,
as standards will become more lax, and it will be easier for people to slip
through the cracks----AND , WORSE STILL.....when a 'KNOWN" catastrophic
problem is identified, a large agency may not be able to effect standards
changes in a timely manner, in which case many more may die as a result---I
point out IANTD guidelines, bondage wings, gear configurations allowed and
suggested, and lack of quick action in the McKnulty case or Andre Smith
triple death tragedy as good examples which push this whole issue back to
"actual number dead per month and per year", as potentially more important
than how many die per 1000 trained  ( DPM  or Deaths Per Thousand, which may
become a new tech diving advertising expression  like Cost per Thousand
 CPM  ) ---and potentially be handled the same way).

We should wonder what an acceptable DPM might be for IANTD or TDI, what they
feel their CPM is for their DPM, and what their total deaths and total costs
of killing students really are.

To me, in the Jane Orenstein death, the "cost" should have been so high,
that IANTD should have felt it MUST react immediately to suspend and remove
Derrick from teaching---but it seems this death was an "acceptable cost" to
them, and so as of now, they have done little in the way of rectifying the
mistakes made,  or in removing the individual who created this "cost".  I
wonder how many student deaths an instructor would need to be implicated in
and proven responsible for, before IANTD would decide the "cost" was so high
they would need to take swift action.

As far as potential new students, a DPM should be a statistic they look for,
as well as "Total number dead per year".
Also critically important should be number of student death in training
dives, and I believe this should NOT be biased by volume.  Volume here could
only be an excuse for poor controls.

Dan Volker



> Sorry Paul, I have to disagree here. The "scoring system" is relevant, not
>for those who have been diving tech for years, but for the new divers who
>would like to be trained to become better divers. With the scoring system
in
>place, they have one more "tool" at their disposal, to help them to avoid
>Derick McNulty  or Andre Smith type training accidents.  Most new divers
>would rather not die this way---most would "like" a rating system of
>instructors and agencies.
>Dan Volker
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Larrett <Paul_Larrett_at_LUC@co*.co*.uk*>
>To: kirvine@sa*.ne* <kirvine@sa*.ne*>; techdive@ea*.ne*
><techdive@ea*.ne*>
>Cc: techdiver@aquanaut.com <techdiver@aquanaut.com>
>Date: Friday, July 03, 1998 6:23 AM
>Subject: Re[2]: BODY COUNT - SCORE CARD TO FOLLOW
>
>
>
>>     Katherine,
>>
>>     You wrote <We can then update the scorecard as to what agency is in
>>     the lead>.
>>
>>     The concept of an agency scoring system based on the number of
>>     fatalities, or lack of them, feels wrong somehow.
>>
>>     Such "one-up-man-ship" suggests insecurity and a need to "prove"
>>     oneself.
>>
>>     I take no sides in this "war" of technical agencies, in my experience
>>     it is the quality of the individual (diver and instructor) that
>>     counts. I do not condone a bad training system and if one of the
>>     agencies has serious flaws they should be corrected asap.
>>
>>     By <in the lead>, what did you mean? What's the race?
>>
>>     A training system based on excellence, using only the best
instructors
>>     teaching only the best students (by recommendation) is the way
>>     forward. Let's hope G.U.E. fulfils this.
>>
>>     Paul Larrett
>>
>>
>>______________________________ Reply Separator
>_________________________________
>>Subject: Re: BODY COUNT - SCORE CARD TO FOLLOW
>>Author:  techdive@ea*.ne* at Internet
>>Date:    02/07/98 20:13
>>
>>
>>Katherine V. Irvine wrote:
>>>
>>> Been a good week : one rebreather death, one NE wreck death, and one
>>> South Africa "tech" death. Maybe we can get the details on these in the
>>> hope that they do not get immediately repeated.
>>>
>>>   We can then update the scorecard as to what agency is in the lead,
>>> which rebreather has the higest body count, and what know-it-all method
>>> of strokery was used to "exucute" these dives.
>>>
>>>   I can not believe the insurance companies are stupid enough to let the
>>> same idiots put them at the same risk over and over and over. Let's talk
>>> about these accidents -
>>>
>>
>>   Katherine,  why is it you think that any agency is at falt? Had you
>>looked at the possibility that any of these divers maybe steped outside
>>of the boundries that were taught to them. You may be jumping the gun
>>alittle early.    John
>>--
>>Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
>>Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
>>--
>>Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
>>Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
>>
>
>--
>Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
>Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
>

--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.

Navigate by Author: [Previous] [Next] [Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject: [Previous] [Next] [Subject Search Index]

[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]

[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]